Before starting her direct examination, the jury was asked to leave the courtroom while the attorneys worked out some important issues with Judge Melville. Janet exercised her Fifth Amendment right to not testify about the welfare fraud that she committed when she withheld her complete financial status from her welfare application, and for receiving benefits she didn’t deserve from October 2001 to March 2003, subject to Judge Melville’s approval after hearing arguments from the defense and prosecution.

19 THE COURT: (To the jury) The next witness

20 that is going to be called is Janet Arvizo, and it’s

21 necessary that I have a hearing outside of the

22 presence of the jury before she starts her

23 testimony.

24 So I’m going to ask you to step out and

25 we’ll call you back in shortly. We will take our

26 normal break as it occurs. So I suspect you’ll have

27 over half an hour here.

28 // 5941

1 (The following proceedings were held in

2 open court outside the presence and hearing of the

3 jury:)

4

5 MR. ZONEN: Did you want the witness in the

6 courtroom?

7 THE COURT: Yes.

8 Come to the front of the courtroom, please.

9 When you get to the witness stand, please remain

10 standing. Face the clerk and raise your right hand.

11

12 JANET JACKSON

13 Having been sworn, testified as follows:

14

15 THE WITNESS: Yes.

16 THE CLERK: Please be seated. State and

17 spell your name for the record.

18 THE WITNESS: My name is Janet Jackson.

19 Spelled J-a-n-e-t, J-a-c-k-s-o-n.

20 THE CLERK: Thank you.

21

22 DIRECT EXAMINATION

23 BY MR. ZONEN:

24 Q. Mrs. Jackson, are you formerly known as

25 Janet Ventura and then Janet Arvizo?

26 A. Yes, sir.

27 Q. And you currently go by “Mrs. Jackson”?

28 A. Yes. 5942

1 Q. And you are married to Jay Jackson?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Based on advice of counsel, have you advised

4 the District Attorney’s Office that you will be

5 asserting the Fifth Amendment privilege as to any

6 question asked of you about welfare recipience or

7 applications for welfare during the period of time

8 that you were on welfare?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Up until the time that you discontinued

11 welfare?

12 A. Yes.

13 MR. ZONEN: No further questions.

14 THE COURT: Have you consulted an attorney

15 regarding your claim of privilege here?

16 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

17 THE COURT: Is your attorney going to be here

18 today?

19 THE WITNESS: No, sir.

20 THE COURT: Did you discuss the claim of

21 privilege at length with him?

22 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

23 THE COURT: Do you believe you have

24 sufficient knowledge to make the claim?

25 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

26 THE COURT: Do you feel you need any other

27 legal advice concerning your claim of privilege?

28 THE WITNESS: Pardon me? 5943

1 THE COURT: Do you need any other legal

2 advice?

3 THE WITNESS: No.

4 THE COURT: What’s the District Attorney’s

5 intention as to how to deal with this?

6 MR. ZONEN: Your Honor, my understanding is

7 that this witness will answer all questions put to

8 her other than questions of her welfare application,

9 questions that she answered in her welfare

10 application or in receipt of welfare benefits.

11 We intend on proceeding with our direct

12 examination. We’re not going to ask her any

13 questions about welfare recipience. And I’m

14 assuming that the assertion of the Fifth will be

15 done at this time. And I don’t believe that —

16 well, our position is stated thereafter in our

17 pleadings.

18 THE COURT: All right. Do you, in fact,

19 make a claim under the Fifth Amendment of the United

20 States Constitution against self-incrimination?

21 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

22 THE COURT: And to what areas do you relate

23 that claim, are you making that claim?

24 THE WITNESS: To what he said.

25 THE COURT: I’d like to hear it from you.

26 THE WITNESS: Of everything to do with the

27 welfare; the application, the process.

28 THE COURT: During what time period? 5944

1 THE WITNESS: The period of when I began

2 till I ended.

3 THE COURT: But when was that?

4 THE WITNESS: Oh, I’m sorry. That was

5 approximately October — approximately October 2001

6 to November 2000 — no, apologize. March 2003.

7 THE COURT: So the claim would involve — the

8 claim of privilege would involve claims made between

9 October of 2001 and March — through March of 2003?

10 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

11 THE COURT: Has the District Attorney

12 considered giving this witness immunity on that

13 issue?

14 MR. ZONEN: We have — we’re not terribly

15 interested in giving a grant of immunity.

16 THE COURT: All right. We have — points and

17 authorities have been filed. And my thought is

18 there’s no reason for you to ask her any questions.

19 But if you think there is, tell me why.

20 MR. SANGER: I don’t believe — Mr. Mesereau

21 will be handling the witness, but I’m handling this

22 legal issue, if we can bifurcate that, Your Honor.

23 As far as the questions right now, I don’t

24 think there’s any point in asking additional

25 questions. The factual issue is set out.

26 THE COURT: All right. What I’m going to ask

27 you to do is to step down from the witness stand,

28 and just sit behind counsel while we have argument 5945

1 on this issue.

Next, the defense made their argument as to why Janet shouldn’t be allowed to plead the Fifth. Sanger eloquently stated that if Janet is allowed to plead the Fifth, then she shouldn’t be called to testify at all, because witnesses cannot pick and choose what questions they can answer under cross-examination.

During the time period of October 2001 through March 2003, Janet received welfare, food stamps, disability, and unemployment, all the while denying that she had any bank accounts, which was an obvious lie because her settlement from J.C. Penney was deposited in her account. The reason her welfare fraud was so important to the defense is because she was filling out applications, receiving and depositing welfare checks, and eventually she faxed a letter cancelling her welfare benefits (the defense believed that she did this because she knew she was about to extort money from Jackson), among other things. Ultimately, the key to attacking her credibility was to show that she had a penchant for lying to get money, and Jackson was just another target for her.

Ironically, during his opening statement Sneddon proclaimed to the jury that Janet would confess to and take responsibility for her welfare fraud, but he obviously had a change of heart!

5 THE COURT: Mr. Sanger?

6 MR. SANGER: Yes, sir. I think the best

7 place to look for the organization, such as it is,

8 of our argument is in our supplemental brief that we

9 filed yesterday that goes through the analysis,

10 really, of the remedies, because that’s the problem

11 that we have.

12 The first — the first issue, I think, is

13 pretty clear, but a witness cannot take the Fifth on

14 a material issue and have their testimony considered

15 by the jury.I think the law is very clear on that.

16 So if the People call someone and they say, “We want

17 to get out A, B and C,” and then after we get that

18 information out, the defense is not going to be

19 allowed to confront and cross-examine on D, E and F,

20 the entire testimony would be stricken.

21 Quite often this comes up when the witness

22 takes the stand, testifies, and in the middle of

23 cross-examination wants to take the Fifth, and the

24 Court at that time has no choice but to strike the

25 entire testimony, because you can’t allow a witness

26 to pick and choose what he or she is going to be

27 subject to on cross-examination. If that’s the

28 case, then obviously the remedy at this point is to 5953

1 not allow the witness to be called at all.

2 The question of materiality, which we

3 briefly — I’ll address a little more fully just

4 because, obviously, we didn’t have a lot of time to

5 file things on either side, obviously, the welfare

6 applications in this case are extensive, and they

7 cover in detail the particular issues that relate to

8 things that have come out through Major Jackson’s

9 testimony and pertain to the precise time period

10 that we’re talking about here, the time period

11 during which Miss Arvizo and her children were

12 importuning Mr. Jackson to assist them through 2000

13 and 2001, on into 2002, and of course during the

14 critical periods in 2003, from early February to mid

15 March.

16 During this period of time, Miss Arvizo was

17 not only accepting welfare, food stamps, disability

18 unemployment, but she was also making applications

19 to the Family Law Court. In her extensive statement

20 under oath and specific questions under oath, she in

21 essence denies that she has any bank accounts,

22 whereas we know she had bank accounts as a result of

23 a substantial settlement from J.C. Penney’s; that

24 she has any money, and for the same reason, that’s

25 false; that she’s received any money from anyone,

26 and we know that’s false from other testimony we

27 have so far; that she is living with anyone, and we

28 know that’s false, based on the testimony of Major 5954

1 Jackson that she’s receiving any assistance in that

2 regard; that she has a vehicle to drive, whether or

3 not she owns it.

4 And there are extensive questions that are

5 answered in a way that is clear that it is perjury,

6 and that is a felony. It is also fraud. And as a

7 matter of constitutional right, a defendant is

8 allowed to confront and cross-examine and is

9 entitled to confront and cross-examine a witness who

10 seeks to testify against him.

11 This witness seeks to make all sorts of

12 allegations, as we understand it, against Mr.

13 Jackson. He has a right, through his counsel, to

14 vigorously cross-examine this witness and show that

15 she has committed acts of perjury and acts of fraud,

16 to show that she is not credible, number one. And

17 number two, to show she is doing this during the

18 very same period that she is making allegations in

19 this case against Mr. Jackson.

20 In addition to that, there are a number of

21 very specific factual tie-ins beyond the fraud and

22 the perjury and the credibility. There are factual

23 tie-ins that we would not be allowed to explore,

24 were the District Attorney to get his wish and allow

25 her to just testify unscathed.

26 Factual tie-ins include allegations that she

27 could not — that she was imprisoned somehow, and at

28 the same time she is making applications, she is 5955

1 receiving welfare checks. She’s able to deposit

2 them. She is able to fax a letter telling the

3 welfare department that she no longer wishes to

4 receive welfare, which we maintain is tied to her

5 belief that she is going to be making money and

6 having security based on what she’s trying to

7 establish with Mr. Jackson. All of those things,

8 were the District Attorney to get their wish, would

9 be excluded and we would not be allowed to confront

10 and cross-examine her on these inconsistent acts

11 that are inconsistent with her allegations.

12 We also have some acts, such as the paying

13 of rent on the Soto Street apartment, and the Court

14 has already heard Major Jackson’s somewhat, I’d say,

15 incredible, but, I mean, certainly it didn’t make

16 sense to me, remarks about needing to have the two

17 residences. Additional information comes out about

18 that and will come out that, in fact, she got Brad

19 Miller to pay her rent, she got Jay Jackson to pay

20 her rent, and she got the Trujillos, who own the

21 place, to forgive her rent, based on her claims that

22 she was not able to afford the rent because of

23 Gavin’s illness.

24 So those acts of multiple fraud with regard

25 to that location presumably would come within this

26 same ambit, at least portions of it. Even if we’re

27 allowed to ask part of that, a good portion of that

28 cross-examination would be precluded. 5956

1 Having said that, and without belaboring

2 that any further, unless the Court has questions,

3 that’s the materiality. There’s just no question

4 these are material issues, particularly in a

5 criminal case where you have a constitutional right

6 to confront and cross-examine.

7 THE COURT: But you wouldn’t be precluded

8 from proving those items through other witnesses.

9 You would only be precluded from asking her those

10 questions that relate to the welfare fraud.

11 MR. SANGER: Right. And we’ve addressed

12 that issue briefly —

13 THE COURT: I know.

14 MR. SANGER: — in here.

15 And the answer to that, I think, is that,

16 you know, the right to confront and cross-examine is

17 extremely important because of a variety of things.

18 Number one, it comes at this stage of the

19 proceedings. If the prosecution’s position were

20 adopted, and we were not allowed to inquire, and the

21 jury is not allowed to know about any of this, they

22 would see a witness get up there, be relatively

23 unscathed as to a major part of the — of the issue

24 with regard to her credibility and as to major

25 issues with regard to activities that she engaged in

26 during this period of time. We would then be denied

27 the right to confront and cross-examine.

28 There’s a great quote that we presented to 5957

1 the Court to the effect that that’s a very effective

2 part of the process, the legal process in general,

3 and it is a constitutional part of the criminal

4 legal process to vigorously cross-examine. That is

5 one of the aspects of our system that helps us try

6 to obtain the truth and get to the bottom of things.

7 If we were not allowed to do that,

8 timing-wise, we would not be able to even present

9 this until after the People rested. So, we would be

10 in a position where this jury is going to hear this,

11 they would not be allowed to hear anything to the

12 contrary, she would leave the stand unscathed, and

13 then eventually, through laboriously presenting

14 custodians of records and presenting other evidence

15 from other sources, we would eventually build the

16 case that we have to show that she, in fact,

17 committed welfare fraud.

18 It comes, you know, certainly a day late or

19 a month or two months or three months late in the

20 proceedings. And I believe constitutionally, we’re

21 deprived of that very important right, and that’s

22 why that right exists. We don’t have to wait until

23 two or three months later to put on evidence

24 incrementally. We’re allowed to confront her right

25 off the bat and say, “Isn’t it a fact that this

26 happened?”

27 Now, in addition to that, Mr. Sneddon, in

28 his opening statement, got up and told the Court, 5958

1 and told the jury, that she was going to take

2 responsibility for her welfare fraud, and that it

3 wasn’t that big a deal anyway, but she would take

4 responsibility. She’s done things that were wrong

5 or that she was not proud of, “But,” you know,

6 “ladies and gentlemen, don’t worry about that,

7 because she’s going to take responsibility and tell

8 you honestly what happened here.”

9 Well, if the People were to get their way,

10 the prosecution was going to get its way in this

11 case, she would not do that, and that would not

12 happen.

13 What’s more harmful to our situation, from

14 the — from Mr. Jackson’s standpoint, is that based

15 on those statements made by the prosecution in

16 opening, Mr. Mesereau, on behalf of the defense and

17 Mr. Jackson, got up and made a substantial

18 statement, a series of statements in his opening

19 statement to the effect that we were going to prove

20 X, Y and Z, and that is going to be now swept under

21 the rug, as it were, if the prosecution were to get

22 its way, until such time as we could then present

23 this incrementally during the defense. So it would

24 be extremely prejudicial and it would — it would be

25 a denial of confrontation.

26 So that is why I believe that we get past

27 that point. I believe that based on the case law

28 and the Constitution, we just can’t carve out safe 5959

1 harbors for a witness and allow that witness to

2 testify to what the prosecution wants and not

3 testify to other relevant matters, some of which

4 have already started to come in through Mr. Jackson,

5 or Major Jackson.

6 Now, that takes us to the next point: What

7 does the Court do? And I think that the only remedy

8 at this point is to strike her — or not strike her

9 testimony, but to disallow it. You can’t have a

10 half cross-examined witness in a criminal case.

11 If the Court does that, we then get to the

12 next problem, which is what do we do with this trial

13 as it stands now?

14 And we’ve suggested that the only remedy is

15 to declare a mistrial, because the prosecution has

16 said they were going to present this. We have spent

17 a good deal of time in opening focusing on Janet

18 Arvizo as a witness and her lack of credibility.

19 She is also the kingpin of what they claim was going

20 to be their case for conspiracy. She is the basis

21 for a lot of what they are claiming will be tied up

22 later to establish co-conspirators for the purpose

23 of all the conditional admissions of testimony that

24 the Court has allowed.

25 Can we unring this bell if she doesn’t

26 testify? Even were the Court to grant an 1118.1

27 motion at the end of the prosecution’s case on

28 conspiracy, it would contaminate the entire trial. 5960

1 So I think that the remedy, if the Court

2 excludes her testimony, which it has to do, is to

3 then grant a mistrial.

Sanger proposed letting Janet plead the Fifth in front of the jury (who had already left to courtroom earlier under the Judge’s orders), but not for the purpose of embarrassing her (yeah, right!), but because she isn’t a litigant in the case and it wouldn’t affect her one way or another. If that wasn’t possible, then a mistrial should be considered by the Judge.

4 Now, the reason I raise that at this point

5 is that we have suggested that if the Court were

6 going to deny a mistrial — this is convoluted, but

7 I think we have to go full circle and come back. If

8 the Court were to deny a mistrial, there might be a

9 way to handle this. We’re not prepared to concede

10 that it’s going to do the trick and that it’s

11 constitutionally adequate. But if the Court were to

12 deny a mistrial, one way to handle this would be to

13 allow the witness to testify and to take the Fifth

14 in front of the jury.

15 Now, it’s not for the purpose of

16 embarrassing Miss Arvizo. But more importantly, she

17 is not a stakeholder. She has no stake in whether

18 or not the jury hears that she’s taking the Fifth.

19 If she were a litigant in the case and a stakeholder

20 in the case itself, the Court might say, “Well,

21 that’s unfair,” in the context of requiring her to

22 either take the Fifth or, as in the Pacers case, for

23 instance, lose the ability to litigate a civil case.

24 Under — the Court’s familiar with Pacers.

25 I mean, the balancing was, you can’t make somebody

26 lose their civil case or choose to waive their Fifth

27 Amendment right to win it. But that’s where the

28 person who was facing that issue is a stakeholder in 5961

1 the litigation.

2 Miss Arvizo is not a stakeholder in this

3 litigation. Therefore, asserting the Fifth, as

4 she’s just done in public, in front of the world, is

5 no different than asserting the Fifth in front of

6 the jury, for her. It does not affect her. She is

7 not a stakeholder in the litigation.

8 What it does is some sort of rough justice

9 which would allow the jury to understand that the

10 promises made by Mr. Mesereau at the time of his

11 opening statement are promises that we intend to

12 keep. And that while we are not permitted to go

13 into this now, because she’s asserting the Fifth,

14 we — it is a clear message to the jury that this is

15 an issue that’s still alive, and to keep an open

16 mind, and we will be presenting evidence at a later

17 time.

18 There was, of course — and I don’t want to

19 comment on the content of stipulations, but I

20 understand that Mr. Mesereau indicated that there

21 might be some way to stipulate around this. And I

22 just throw that out, not — we’re not trying to

23 force the prosecution to stipulate. But just as a

24 possible remedy, another remedy would be to enter

25 into some kind of a stipulation, if the prosecution

26 were willing to do it.

27 Absent those remedies, it seems that

28 following the law and looking at the Constitution on 5962

1 confrontation, the only choice that the Court has

2 to — the only choice the Court can make at this

3 point is to exclude her entire testimony, and then

4 the chips fall where they may, either a motion for a

5 mistrial is made, and granted or denied, and then we

6 go on to the next step.

7 The reason I address the motion for mistrial

8 issue is because I think it’s only fair to look at

9 the horizon and see what happens, which might prompt

10 everybody to resolve this some other way, whether

11 it’s by the Court’s order or by stipulation.

12 Unless the Court has questions, I’ll respond

13 to the prosecution.

14 THE COURT: All right. Mr. Zonen?

In his rebuttal, Zonen argued that whether or not Janet testified, the defense could still expose her alleged fraud by questioning other prosecution and defense witnesses, and that having Janet plead the Fifth in front of the jury would prejudice them against her. Janet’s alleged welfare fraud was not relevant to the case, and the defense only wanted to use it to attack her credibility, according to the prosecution, and allowing a mistrial due to this issue was not necessary and shouldn’t be approved.

15 MR. ZONEN: Your Honor, we’ve very

16 thoroughly briefed this issue and I’m going to be

17 very brief in my argument.

18 There’s nothing that they’re seeking to do

19 in the course of this trial for purposes of

20 impeaching her testimony by way of bringing in this

21 information that they cannot do even in the absence

22 of Miss Arvizo or Mrs. Jackson testifying to these

23 matters. They have all the documentation necessary

24 to be able to present the information that Mr.

25 Mesereau said in his opening statement that they

26 would be presenting, and all of this information can

27 be adequately presented to the jury and in a very

28 thorough way. 5963

1 She has a right, constitutional right, not

2 to answer questions that would incriminate her. To

3 a large extent, to some extent certainly, this is a

4 problem of their own creation. Prior to the

5 commencement of this trial, the defendant hired an

6 attorney to present to the Los Angeles District

7 Attorney’s Office a compilation of material, along

8 with a demand letter that she immediately be

9 prosecuted for this matter. So the fact that she’s

10 now asserting the Fifth is certainly — and they’re

11 denying that they did it, even though we have now

12 shown that that same lawyer has filed writs to the

13 California State Supreme Court on behalf of

14 defendant as well.

15 It’s certainly a right that she has to

16 assert the Fifth as to any question that could tend

17 to incriminate her. There’s little question but

18 that issues dealing with this matter could tend to

19 incriminate her. Certainly the matter is currently

20 before the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office.

21 She has a right to do that. She has a right to do

22 that outside the presence of the jury. The only

23 reason that it would be done in front of the jury

24 would be to prejudice her in her assertion of a

25 constitutional right, and case law clearly states

26 that that is not to be done.

27 This is a collateral matter entirely, has

28 nothing to do with any activity that took place in 5964

1 Neverland, has nothing to do with any activity that

2 took place at any other location involving the

3 defendant, such as Miami. It has all to do entirely

4 with credibility issues. And to that extent, since

5 it is entirely with credibility issues, it is out of

6 the gamut of any of those cases that talk in terms

7 of court-imposed immunity.

8 And finally, the issue of a mistrial should

9 be, of course, denied. There is no issue that

10 cannot be presented to this jury in some other

11 fashion. And so that would not be an appropriate

12 remedy.

13 We’ll submit it on our pleadings.

14 MR. SANGER: May I respond, briefly?

15 THE COURT: Let me ask him a question first.

16 MR. SANGER: Mr. Zonen or myself?

17 THE COURT: Mr. Zonen.

18 MR. SANGER: Okay.

Sanger countered that witnesses don’t have a right to not assert their Fifth Amendment protections in front of a jury, and that because she wasn’t stakeholder in the current case, she should be forced to assert it in front of the jury. He referenced the same case that Howard Weitzman and Bert Fields cited in their motion to have Jackson’s criminal trial precede his possible civil trial in 1993, Pacers, Inc. v. Superior Court, in which the court ruled that a defendant in parallel civil and criminal trials can have an order staying discover during the investigative phase of a civil trial until the expiration of the criminal statute of limitations so that the prosecution in the criminal case cannot use evidence and testimony disclosed during a civil case in their criminal case. (Read Paragraph IV for more information on this ruling.)

19 THE COURT: The one issue is, if I deny the

20 defendant’s request to prevent her from testifying,

21 should she be required to claim the privilege in

22 front of the jury?

23 MR. ZONEN: I believe there’s adequate cases

24 that say that is not an obligation for a witness.

25 And the motive in this case purely is for the jury

26 to be able to surmise some negative connotation to

27 asserting a constitutional protection. And I think

28 that the case law is pretty clear that that is just 5965

1 not the implication that they’re supposed to be

2 given from the assertion of a constitutional right.

3 THE COURT: All right. Mr. Sanger?

4 MR. SANGER: I was going to respond to that

5 precise remark that Mr. Zonen made, and therefore to

6 the Court’s question, which is Mr. Zonen said

7 it’s — she has a right to assert the Fifth

8 Amendment. There’s absolutely no question about

9 that. We all believe in the Fifth Amendment. And

10 that’s the law of this country.

11 She does not have a right not to assert it

12 in front of the jury. That is not her right. That

13 is a judicially created rule that is not hard and

14 fast, but it was created to not allow unfairness in

15 front of the jury. It has nothing to do with the

16 witness, again, unless the witness is a stakeholder,

17 which she’s not. That would come under the Pacers

18 kind of analysis.

19 So she does not have a right not to say it

20 in front of the jury. She said it in front of the

21 entire world here on the stand.

22 So the question is, can the Court fashion a

23 remedy that may work? And we believe that that is

24 at least a possibility, depending on how the Court

25 does it. You know, we’re not in a position to

26 concede it.

27 And the only other thing I’d say, quickly,

28 is that with regard to this being reported to the 5966

1 L.A. D.A., it was reported to the L.A. D.A. by

2 somebody who’s not a member of this particular

3 defense team, and that’s what we said. We didn’t

4 mean to imply anything else. However, Mr. Sneddon

5 got up and said it was a crime. Certainly people

6 are prosecuted for much less in Santa Barbara than

7 what this person has done by way of welfare fraud,

8 and it’s reasonable for anybody to report it if they

9 want to. I think that’s a red herring.

10 The real issue comes down to what is the

11 Court going to do about it? Just exclude her

12 testimony entirely? Which leaves us with a can of

13 worms and possibly a mistrial. Or can we find some

14 other way around it? And that’s where we are. And

15 I submit it to the Court for a decision.

Upon the completion of the defense and prosecution’s arguments for and against having Janet’s testimony stricken and a mistrial declared, respectively, Judge Melville cited a 1990 case where the judge ruled that a witnesses’ testimony should not have been stricken, and having that witness plead the Fifth in front of the jury (and allowing them to draw negative inferences from it) would have sufficed, and Judge Melville used that as a precedent for his decision to allow Janet to testify, and to deny the defense’s motion for a mistrial. Before allowing her to testify, however, Judge Melville stated that he would read a few important rules precluding the jury from using Janet’s pleading of the Fifth Amendment against her, and that Janet would not have to make that claim in front of the jury (instead, they would be notified that she made it prior to her testimony).

16 THE COURT: Thank you, Counsel.

17 Neither of you cited People vs. Hecker,

18 219 Cal.App.3d 1238, which is a 1990 case, where an

19 appellate court reviewed a striking of testimony

20 where a witness claimed the Fifth Amendment and

21 indicated that that was, you know, too drastic of a

22 solution for the problem.

23 The appellate court in that case observed

24 that it might have been appropriate for the Court to

25 have permitted the witness to testify, allow the

26 jury to draw negative inferences from his invocation

27 of the Fifth Amendment. And I think the

28 instructions in the Hecker case are powerful 5967

1 instructions to this Court.

2 Therefore, the Court will deny the defense

3 motion to prevent her from testifying, which also

4 leads us to the — takes us right on past the motion

5 for a mistrial, which is denied also.

6 The next question becomes should she be

7 required to claim the Fifth Amendment in front of

8 the jury, and I have a suggestion here.

9 I’d like one member of each team to come

10 forward and pick up my suggested jury instruction,

11 and what — the total intent of this instruction is

12 to advise the jury of the problem that has arisen in

13 this case because of the assertion of the Fifth

14 Amendment.

15 So looking at the suggested instruction on

16 top — and you’ll notice there’s two instructions.

17 Immediately behind that is CALJIC 2.25, which what I

18 would intend to do is blend these instructions,

19 so —

20 MR. SANGER: Your Honor, your intention

21 would be to read this instruction before she

22 testifies?

23 THE COURT: Right.

24 MR. SANGER: Okay.

25 THE COURT: What I would intend to do, if you

26 will follow me and follow along, and we’ll read it

27 right now out loud, because I’m going to interject

28 CALJIC 2.25 in here, so I would tell the jury, “In a 5968

1 hearing held outside your presence, the Court has

2 determined that the Rules of Evidence preclude the

3 parties in this case from examination or

4 cross-examination of Janet Arvizo on the subject of

5 possible welfare fraud.”

6 Then I would interject 2.25, “When a witness

7 refuses to testify in any matter relying on their

8 constitutional privilege against self-incrimination,

9 you must not draw from the exercise of this

10 privilege any inference as to the believability of

11 the witness or any other matter at issue in this

12 trial.”

13 Then going back to this instruction, “This

14 is a ruling that was not anticipated when the

15 attorneys made their opening statements to you.

16 Those statements, however, are not evidence. You

17 should not consider the failure of the prosecution

18 or the defense to cover this subject area in the

19 examination or cross-examination of this witness as

20 having any evidentiary significance or any

21 importance in your ultimate decision on the case,

22 nor should you speculate as to the possible reasons

23 for the Court’s decision.

24 “Evidence of possible welfare fraud may

25 still at some point be presented in this case, but

26 it will not be introduced through the testimony of

27 this witness.”

28 So that’s what I would propose. So, in 5969

1 essence, I’m not — she’s not required to make the

2 claim in front of the jury, but I tell the jury that

3 she’s made that claim, and the same effect, and I

4 explain to them why.

5 And, you know, I have a deep concern that

6 both sides, but primarily — well, I shouldn’t say

7 “primarily.” Be careful how I say this. But both

8 sides were relying on the fact that evidence of

9 possible welfare fraud was going to come in and both

10 made pretty strong statements in their opening

11 statement about it, and I don’t want to gloss over

12 that with the jury. I think it needs to be brought

13 to their attention so that — and here’s where I

14 feel the more strong side is, so the defense — so

15 they’re not wondering why the defense isn’t

16 producing the evidence that Mr. Mesereau stated he

17 would produce in his opening statement.

18 So that’s my proposal.

19 MR. SANGER: Could I be heard on just a

20 couple of technical issues?

21 THE COURT: Yes.

Sanger and Mesereau had a few issues they wanted to address with Judge Melville. First, Sanger asked if the wording of Judge Melville’s statement to the jury about Janet’s charges be changed from “possible welfare fraud” to “possible fraud and perjury”, as the latter description was far more specific and indicative of the true nature of Janet’s crime.

Mesereau wanted to know if he would be permitted to ask questions to Janet to destroy the prosecution’s assertion that she’s never hustled anyone for money before, and Judge Melville stated that he would cover that issue when it was brought up during Janet’s testimony.

In a twisted act of irony, Janet requested to be addressed as “Mrs. Jackson” during her testimony!

22 MR. SANGER: I don’t know how technical they

23 are, but —

24 THE COURT: Probably pretty technical.

25 MR. SANGER: Well, it’s actually fairly

26 substantial in one sense. But the proposed

27 instruction says “possible welfare fraud,” and the

28 other thing that we specifically talked about was 5970

1 perjury. And we’d ask the Court to add “perjury”

2 to — “welfare fraud and perjury.” There’s probably

3 other things, but at the very least that covers the

4 broad areas.

5 The other suggestion that I would have is

6 that the Court — that the first sentence in the

7 suggested instruction – and we’ve had all of a

8 minute and a half to consider this, okay? – but the

9 first sentence that the Court suggests before

10 reading the refusal of a witness to testify doesn’t

11 really indicate that the witness has refused to

12 testify. It says, “The Court’s determined that

13 evidence” — “the rules of evidence preclude the

14 parties….”

15 Now, understanding that our prior motions

16 were denied, and so this is without conceding that,

17 we would ask that the Court indicate that the

18 witness has refused to answer certain questions and

19 the Court has granted the witness that privilege.

20 And then that moves into your 2.25, which explains

21 what the refusal and the privilege is, and that the

22 actual exercise of the privilege cannot be

23 considered.

24 And the reason I suggest that is that

25 otherwise – well, I understand what the Court was

26 doing with this – otherwise, it appears — it may

27 appear to the jury that they’re not to consider this

28 whole area for some reason, and what you’re really 5971

1 saying is they can’t consider the refusal and the

2 assertion of a privilege.

3 THE COURT: Right.

4 MR. SANGER: I’d just ask that that be

5 clarified in that first sentence.

6 Thank you.

7 THE COURT: Did you want to say anything in

8 response?

9 MR. ZONEN: I have no objection to the

10 inclusion of the word “perjury,” but — I have no

11 objection to the inclusion of the word “perjury,”

12 but as to the balance of it, I think the content of

13 the instruction as drafted is adequate.

14 THE COURT: Okay. I think this is how I

15 would like to do it. I think it solves the problem

16 not exactly the way you wanted me to, but taking the

17 suggested instruction paragraph starting with “In a

18 hearing…,” I’m going to add a sentence before that

19 sentence.

20 So the first sentence would read: “The

21 witness, Janet Arvizo, has made a claim of privilege

22 under the Fifth Amendment of the United States

23 Constitution.” Then I go into, “In a hearing held

24 outside your presence, the Court has determined that

25 the rules of evidence preclude the parties….”

26 And then the next sentence is, “When a witness

27 refuses to testify to any matter relying on a

28 constitutional privilege…,” so it all comes 5972

1 together there.

2 Okay?

3 MR. ZONEN: Yes.

4 MR. MESEREAU: Your Honor?

5 THE COURT: Yes, sir.

6 MR. MESEREAU: I would be cross-examining

7 the witness, and could I just ask a question? If

8 the prosecution tries to —

9 THE COURT: They can’t hear you in the back.

10 MR. MESEREAU: Sure. I’ll go up there.

11 Your Honor, I’ll be cross-examining the

12 witness, and I suspect the prosecution is going to

13 try to ask questions to create the impression that

14 she’s never asked anybody for money, which we can

15 prove is not true. The — that raises the question

16 of, if they open that door, if they try and create

17 that impression, the question then becomes what can

18 we do to counteract it through proper use of

19 cross-examination? They’ve already suggested in

20 their calling other witnesses that this woman is

21 pristine pure and it’s all her husband who was only

22 asking for money.

23 MR. ZONEN: Judge, we’ve gone beyond the

24 argument in this matter. And I’m going to object to

25 the use of dual counsel as to this motion as well.

26 THE COURT: I think that’s good. I’m glad

27 you did.

28 I think we’ll just deal with that – 5973

1 MR. MESEREAU: Okay.

2 THE COURT: — when we get to it.

3 MR. MESEREAU: If we could have the

4 opportunity to approach sidebar, if necessary, on

5 that, I would ask the Court’s indulgence in that

6 regard. Because I think an issue might come up and

7 we do have to defend our client, Mr. Jackson,

8 vigorously and professionally, and it does raise a

9 thorny issue.

10 THE COURT: I’ll deal with that as it comes

11 up.

12 MR. MESEREAU: Okay. Thank you, Your Honor.

13 THE COURT: In a sense, what Mr. Mesereau was

14 saying is that, you know, the claim of privilege is

15 binding on everybody, and the prosecution as well as

16 the defense have to stay away from those areas that

17 would cause her to have to make continual claims in

18 front of the jury. That’s what this is about. Both

19 sides are restricted in their questioning to areas

20 outside of the alleged welfare fraud and resultant

21 possible perjury.

22 And that’s how I take your remarks, Mr.

23 Mesereau. If they don’t respect those lines, then

24 what do you do? And we’ll deal with that as it

25 arises.

26 All right. What we’re going to do is we’re

27 not going to recess. I’m going to step off the

28 bench. We’ll have the jury brought in immediately, 5974

1 and then we’ll start.

2 I don’t want the witness in the witness

3 stand, because I’m going to instruct the jury from

4 the witness chair. The witness has already been

5 sworn. I’ll advise the jury of that.

6 Since she is now known as Mrs. Jackson, are

7 we going to refer to her mainly, for the most part,

8 as “Mrs. Arvizo” for the purposes of the

9 examination, or —

10 MR. ZONEN: She’s requesting that I address

11 her as “Mrs. Jackson.”

12 THE COURT: Well, that’s fine. I didn’t ask

13 you what she wanted.

14 (Laughter.)

15 THE COURT: I said, are we going to address

16 her as “Miss Arvizo,” “Mrs. Arvizo”?

17 MR. MESEREAU: We would request that, Your

18 Honor.

19 THE COURT: The reason being, there’s so many

20 documents, tapes and things, and I’m concerned about

21 the confusion to the jury of the names. That’s all.

22 MR. ZONEN: Whatever is the Court’s

23 direction.

24 THE COURT: I’ll allow you to address the

25 issue with the witness in front of the jury, so that

26 they understand that I’m not going to require that

27 people address her as “Mrs. Jackson” in the trial,

28 because I don’t want to have that problem of 5975

1 confusion over names. All right?

2 MR. ZONEN: Okay.

3 MR. MESEREAU: Thank you, Your Honor.

4 THE COURT: Bring in the jury.

Here are Judge Melville’s instructions to the jury regarding Janet’s pleading of the Fifth:

6 (The following proceedings were held in

7 open court in the presence and hearing of the

8 jury:)

9

10 THE COURT: (To the jury) Here I am again.

11 (Laughter.)

12 THE COURT: I’m going to read you again some

13 instructions, and remind you that at the end of the

14 case, I will fully instruct you on all of the law

15 involved in the case, but I’m instructing you at

16 this time to specifically deal with a specific

17 problem that’s arisen in the evidence of the case.

18 So I’d like you to listen carefully to this.

19 The witness, Janet Arvizo, has made a claim

20 of privilege under the Fifth Amendment of the United

21 States Constitution. In a hearing held outside your

22 presence, the Court has determined that the rules of

23 evidence preclude the parties in this case from

24 examination or cross-examination of Janet Arvizo on

25 the subject of possible welfare fraud.

26 When a witness refuses to testify to any

27 matter relying on the constitutional privilege

28 against self-incrimination, you must not draw from 5976

1 the exercise of this privilege any inference as to

2 the believability of the witness or any other matter

3 at issue in this trial.

4 This is a ruling that was not anticipated

5 when the attorneys made their opening statements to

6 you. Those statements, however, are not evidence.

7 You should not consider the failure of the

8 prosecution or the defense to cover this subject

9 area in the examination or cross-examination of this

10 witness as having any evidentiary significance or

11 any importance in your ultimate decision on the

12 case, nor should you speculate as to the possible

13 reasons for the Court’s decision. Evidence of

14 possible welfare fraud and perjury may still at some

15 point be presented in this case, but it will not be

16 introduced through the testimony of this witness.

17 You may call your witness to the stand.

18 MR. ZONEN: We’ll call Janet Arvizo Jackson

19 to the stand, please.

Here we go! Finally! Here is Janet’s description of her background, and her recollection of how she met Jackson:

4 DIRECT EXAMINATION

5 BY MR. ZONEN:

6 Q. The name that you’re currently going by is

7 what name, please?

8 A. Janet Jackson.

9 Q. And you were previously Janet Arvizo; is

10 that correct?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. And your maiden name is Janet Ventura; is

13 that right?

14 A. Yes. Correct.

15 Q. To the extent that you may, at different

16 times in this proceeding, be referred to by any of

17 those three names, that would be you; is that

18 correct?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. And you understand that there are documents

21 that will be admitted and shown to you under the

22 name “Janet Arvizo”?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. And you understand that you’ll be addressed

25 as “Janet Arvizo” at different times during this

26 proceeding as well?

27 A. Yes.

28 Q. You are currently married to whom? 5978

1 A. Jay Jackson.

2 Q. And what does Jay Jackson do?

3 A. He’s a major in the Army.

4 Q. And with whom do you reside at this time?

5 A. With my husband and my four children.

6 Q. And your four children include the three who

7 have already testified in this proceeding?

8 A. Yes, sir.

9 Q. Star, Gavin and Davellin?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. And you have a baby at home; is that right?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. And how old is he?

14 A. He’s eight months.

15 Q. I’d like to direct your attention, please,

16 back to the year 2000, as best I can. Can you tell

17 me if, during that period of time, you were first

18 introduced to Michael Jackson?

19 A. I’m sorry, say that again.

20 Q. When did you first meet Mr. Jackson?

21 A. In August of 2000.

22 Q. All right. And is Michael Jackson here in

23 the courtroom at this time?

24 A. Yeah.

25 Q. And is he the man with the long dark hair?

26 A. Uh-huh.

27 Q. Sitting to my right?

28 A. Yes. 5979

1 Q. What were the circumstances of your

2 introduction to Mr. Jackson?

3 A. My son’s illness.

4 Q. Your son was suffering from what illness at

5 the time?

6 A. Cancer.

7 Q. How is it that you happened to meet Mr.

8 Jackson?

9 A. It was either two — one of two people. I

10 never knew who.

11 Q. Somebody arranged an introduction?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Was your son actively ill at that time?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. What type of treatment was he receiving?

16 A. Chemotherapy.

17 Q. Was there a time that you and other members

18 of your family were taken to Neverland?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. And Neverland is a ranch in Santa Barbara

21 County, is it not?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. All right. Do you remember when that was,

24 what month, what year?

25 A. August 2000.

26 Q. Did somebody take you there?

27 A. We were picked up, yes.

28 Q. Do you know who that person was? 5980

1 A. His limo.

2 Q. All right. And who among your family

3 members went to Neverland back then?

4 A. My ex-husband David and my three children.

5 Q. And the three children are the ones we’ve

6 already identified?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Okay. How old was Gavin at that time?

9 A. Gavin was ten.

10 Q. Had he already undergone surgery for his

11 cancer?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. And was he going through chemotherapy at the

14 time?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Can you describe his condition at the time

17 of that first visit to Neverland? How was he doing

18 at that time?

19 A. He was at that point where walking was kind

20 of difficult for him. He would walk, I don’t know,

21 when you — kind of like a toddler walk.

22 Q. All right.

23 A. And he would tire easy.

24 Q. Was he taking medication at the time?

25 A. Yes.

26 Q. And —

27 A. The chemotherapy.

28 Q. And as a consequence of the surgery, has he 5981

1 since been taking medication?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. What’s the nature of the medication that he

4 takes?

5 A. His — one of his kidneys is malfunctioning,

6 and so that — he takes one medicine for that so he

7 doesn’t end up losing that kidney. He sees a

8 specialist for that, but there’s a possibility that

9 he could lose his kidney.

10 Q. Okay. What’s the other medication?

11 A. The other one is in replacement of his

12 spleen, and that’s for — it’s — it’s a medical

13 word, but I really don’t know what it means. They

14 call it prophylactic, and that’s so — because

15 there’s certain bacteria that, if Gavin is exposed

16 to those bacterias, it’s certain death.

17 Q. It’s an antibiotic of sorts?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. It’s for his immune system?

20 A. This is what they’ve explained to me. I

21 don’t know.

Here is her recollection of her first trip to Neverland in August 2000; during this excerpt, Janet said the first of what will be many, and I mean MANY inconsistencies between her testimony, and those of her family! She stated that her children never stayed in the guest units at Neverland during their first visit:

Next, Janet described Gavin’s chemotherapy treatments, and his need to live in the sterile room at his grandmother’s apartment. Notice how Janet was chastised for not listening to the entire question before answering; this is the first of many reprimands that she received about this!

23 Q. Where was your home at that time?

24 A. Okay. It’s — can I explain to them?

25 Q. Well, try to focus on the question as best

26 you can.

27 A. Okay.

28 Q. Did you have a residence at that time? 5984

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Did you have actually more than one place

3 where you or other members of your family were

4 staying?

5 A. Me and the children, when Gavin — right

6 after he would have —

7 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; nonresponsive.

8 MR. ZONEN: You have to listen to the

9 question.

10 THE WITNESS: Okay.

11 MR. ZONEN: Does the Court want to rule?

12 THE COURT: I thought you were going to take

13 care of it.

14 MR. ZONEN: I was.

15 THE COURT: Well, go ahead.

16 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Listen to the question as

17 specifically as possible, okay?

18 Was there more than one residence that you

19 and your family were staying in during this period

20 of time?

21 A. I don’t know how to answer that without

22 explaining it.

23 Q. Did you have a residence that you were

24 paying rent on?

25 A. Yes.

26 Q. Where was that?

27 A. In East L.A.

28 Q. Was there another residence that any member 5985

1 of your family was staying in?

2 A. At my mom’s.

3 Q. Where was your mom’s residence?

4 A. In El Monte.

5 Q. And who was staying at your mom’s residence?

6 A. Gavin and David.

7 Q. Okay. And why was Gavin — why were Gavin

8 and David staying at your mother’s residence in El

9 Monte?

10 A. Because Davellin and Star were still going

11 to school. I got three kids, you know. Only

12 because Gavin has cancer doesn’t mean the other

13 ones, they’re off. They got to go to school.

14 Q. All right. But —

15 A. And so —

16 Q. — why was Gavin staying at your mother’s?

17 A. Sterile room.

18 Q. Tell us —

19 A. Because in my bachelor apartment, there’s no

20 divided rooms, bedrooms.

21 Q. All right. So what did Gavin — what

22 special needs did Gavin require that necessitated

23 him staying at your mother’s?

24 A. A sterile room after chemotherapy.

25 Q. Could he or was he being exposed to your

26 other two children?

27 A. Yes, my other two kids were still going to

28 school, so they had to be separated for that moment, 5986

1 because the children could have picked up some other

2 germs, which at the time Star was nine, and —

3 Q. So your then husband David and Gavin stayed

4 at your mother’s?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. And the rest of you stayed at where?

7 A. East L.A.

8 Q. And the East L.A. was the Soto Street

9 residence that —

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. — we’ve heard something about; is that

12 correct?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Describe that residence for us.

15 A. I’ve lived there for about five years.

16 Q. Tell us what it looked like, the residence.

17 A. Um —

18 Q. How many rooms?

19 A. It was my home.

20 Q. All right. But how many rooms? Was there a

21 bedroom?

22 A. No.

23 Q. Was there a living room?

24 A. No. It was just a room and a wall to divide

25 the kitchen.

26 Q. Okay. So there’s a kitchen and one room?

27 A. Yeah.

28 Q. It’s a studio; is that right? 5987

1 A. Yeah.

2 Q. And all of you lived in that residence?

3 A. Yes. And it had a rest room, too.

4 Q. And it had a bathroom?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. And a kitchen?

7 A. Yeah.

8 BAILIFF CORTEZ: Could you lean forward so

9 we can hear?

10 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: We’re not picking on you. We

11 need to have everybody, all of the witnesses, speak

12 directly into the microphone so you can be heard.

13 A. Yeah.

14 Q. And for what period of time was this your

15 residence? From when to when?

16 A. For five years. From 1998 to 2003.

17 Q. Okay. There’s some Kleenex up there, if you

18 need some, as well, I believe, in front of you.

19 Now, during the period of time that Gavin

20 was ill, did he stay at that residence on Soto

21 Street at all?

22 A. No.

23 Q. Was he going to school during that year that

24 he was ill?

25 A. He — the whole entire time while he had

26 cancer he did not attend school one single day.

27 Q. Was he either at your mother’s residence or

28 at the hospital? 5988

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. And did he periodically return to the

3 hospital for treatment?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Can you tell us approximately within, say, a

6 30-day period how much of that time he would have

7 spent at the hospital, how often of that time he

8 would have spent at your mother’s residence?

9 A. He didn’t just stay for the chemotherapy.

10 He was hospitalized — sometimes because he had

11 fevers, he had to get hospitalized. Any — any

12 fragility in his health, he had to be hospitalized.

13 Q. So give us a sense. Of the 30-day period,

14 what percentage of that might he have spent in a

15 hospital?

16 A. Sometimes. Sometimes more than half.

17 Q. All right.

18 A. Sometimes.

19 Q. How long did the chemotherapy go on?

20 A. Almost a year, but quite not a year.

21 Q. Was there a point in time where doctors

22 determined that he was in remission?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. And approximately when was that?

25 A. It was about in May, but for sure — yeah.

26 Q. In May of when?

27 A. In May of 2001.

28 Q. May of 2001? 5989

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Was there some kind of demarcation, a test

3 or something that they did?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. And what was that?

6 A. They did a full checkup, and they concluded

7 that it was not — it was in remission.

8 Q. Okay.

9 A. And then that’s when — he had to have a

10 little thing going through his heart, his main

11 artery, because he was receiving such strong

12 dosages, so he had to have the strongest artery.

13 Q. And that was removed?

14 A. Yes, that was removed.

15 Q. All right. Is he in remission today?

16 A. Yes, he is.

17 Q. Is he healthy today?

18 A. Outside the — the two specialists that see

19 him continuously, his oncologist, his nephrologist,

20 he’s a healthy boy, but he’s got medical concerns.

21 Q. And still sees a doctor?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. And still takes medication?

24 A. Yes. And then the scare we just had where

25 he had a very serious test.

26 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; nonresponsive.

27 MR. ZONEN: Hold on.

28 No objection to that. 5990

1 THE COURT: I’ll allow the “Yes” and strike

2 the rest of the sentence.

Zonen questioned Janet again about her trips to Neverland in 2000 and 2002. She testified that she didn’t go back to Neverland during her son’s second visit there in 2000 because of the fight she got into with ex-husband David during her first visit:

3 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: All right. Now, you

4 described that first visit to Neverland back in

5 August of 2000; is that correct?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. All right. When was the next time you went

8 to Neverland?

9 A. Me?

10 Q. Yes.

11 A. Oh, let me see. Um — um — September 2002,

12 because Chris had invited me, Chris and Aja.

13 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; nonresponsive.

14 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: The answer (sic) simply is

15 when was the next time you went?

16 A. Oh. September of 2002.

17 Q. Did your son or both of your sons or your

18 two sons and daughter return to Neverland at an

19 earlier time than that?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Excuse me.

22 When was the next time — when was the next

23 time that they went back to Neverland, to your

24 recollection?

25 A. Okay. The boys?

26 Q. Yes.

27 A. The boys went right after the initial visit

28 in August of 2000. But Davellin didn’t go. Neither 5991

1 did I.

2 Q. Did your then husband David go?

3 A. Yes, with David.

4 Q. And were they transported there?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. And why didn’t you go?

7 A. I felt it was more important for Davellin to

8 focus on her school. She was already starting high

9 school, ninth grade.

10 Q. So you stayed home with Davellin?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. And were there any other visits —

13 A. And because of the little incident that Dave

14 did over there.

15 Q. You’ve had problems with David over the

16 years of your marriage; is that correct?

17 A. Yeah.

18 Q. Do you know how many visits your children

19 had to Neverland after the initial visit, and

20 approximately when they were?

21 A. Okay. The first initial visit in August,

22 and these are all approximate, August of 2000. Then

23 the boys, when they returned with David, right after

24 that. Then in the spring of 2002, with Chris. And

25 then Michael invited them immediately back up. And

26 then with Chris’s — the family birthday party that

27 Chris had, Chris and Aja. And then the filming of

28 this stuff – 5992

1 Q. All right.

2 A. — in September.

3 Q. All right. You’re not — all right. Let’s

4 see if we can work this out a little bit.

5 We have the initial visit August of 2000.

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. And then you said they returned, your

8 husband David and the two boys, soon thereafter?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. And by “soon,” are we talking about within a

11 week or two?

12 A. Oh, yes.

13 Q. Okay. And do you know for what period of

14 the visit they stayed, for how long?

15 A. And this is approximate, okay?

16 Q. Sure. Sure.

17 A. Pardon me?

18 Q. Approximately how long they stayed for the

19 second visit.

20 A. Oh, I couldn’t tell you.

21 Q. Would you know —

22 A. Just days.

23 Q. — if it was more than one night?

24 A. Oh, definitely, yes.

25 Q. Was it less than a week?

26 A. Yes.

27 Q. And you were at home with Davellin?

28 A. Yes. 5993

1 Q. And was “home” at that time the Soto Street

2 address?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Now, were there any other visits in that

5 year, the year of 2000, to either Neverland or a

6 visit with Michael Jackson at someplace other than

7 Neverland?

8 A. Yes. Michael had invited Gavin and David to

9 go to the Universal Hilton in Studio City, and

10 that’s — and in this time it was only Gavin in the

11 hotel.

12 Q. Okay. Gavin and only Gavin, or Gavin and

13 his father?

14 A. Only Gavin and David.

15 Q. So his father went, but not his brother or

16 his sister?

17 A. No.

18 Q. And you didn’t go?

19 A. No. No.

20 Q. Was that an overnight visit?

21 A. No, it was a day visit.

22 Q. And they returned that same day?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. All right. Was there any other visit in

25 2000 that you’re aware of?

26 A. No.

27 Q. Was there any visit in 2001 that you were

28 aware of? 5994

1 A. Zero.

2 Q. No visits to Neverland during that time?

3 A. No.

Janet testified that after the third visit to Neverland in 2000, she didn’t allow her kids to visit anymore because she felt “a little bit uneasy”, and that she stopped all communications between Gavin and Jackson. This is an absolute lie because Gavin and Star were sending Jackson cards in the mail, and were still trying to reach him even as he recorded “Invincible” in New York City during that time!

4 Q. All right. Now, during that initial period

5 when your son met Michael Jackson, did you have any

6 telephone calls with Mr. Jackson at all?

7 A. Me?

8 Q. Yes.

9 A. In 2000?

10 Q. Yes. In 2000.

11 A. No.

12 Q. Do you know if Mr. Jackson was having

13 conversations with your son over the telephone?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Do you know where those conversations took

16 place? And I mean your son’s end of the

17 conversation, where he was at the time of those

18 conversations?

19 A. Sometime in the hospital, but mostly at my

20 mom’s house. Gavin had his own room. And he had

21 his own telephone line, his own — his own answering

22 machine, because usually they — the doctor had

23 suggested that sometimes when we use a phone, we can

24 easily pass viruses or anything on the telephone.

25 Q. So he had a telephone that only he used?

26 A. Yes.

27 Q. That was at your mom’s house?

28 A. Yes. 5995

1 Q. Now, did you ever — were you ever present

2 during any of these conversations?

3 A. Sometimes. Sometimes, but not — they’d go

4 on forever, so I’d — you know, I have to go do

5 other things.

6 Q. Approximately how long were these telephone

7 conversations?

8 A. Hours.

9 Q. Literally hours?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. And how frequent were they? In other words,

12 how many conversations would they have in, say, a

13 week period of time?

14 A. They were frequent. I couldn’t — I

15 couldn’t be able to tell you. But I know that after

16 he met him, it was more.

17 Q. And did these phone calls go on for a length

18 of time?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. In other words, over weeks?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Approximately how many?

23 A. I can’t remember.

24 Q. Now, you said that after that third visit at

25 the hotel, there were no other visits —

26 A. Uh-huh.

27 Q. — that either or any of your children had

28 with Michael Jackson during the balance of 2000 or 5996

1 2001?

2 A. Correct.

3 Q. Do you know why that was?

4 A. Well —

5 MR. MESEREAU: Objection.

6 THE WITNESS: Because me.

7 MR. MESEREAU: Calls for speculation;

8 foundation; and hearsay.

9 THE COURT: Overruled.

10 You may answer.

11 THE WITNESS: Okay. What was the question?

12 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Do you know why that was?

13 A. Because I just felt a little bit uneasy.

14 That’s all. He didn’t do nothing, you know. You

15 know, it just felt — it just felt uneasy.

16 Q. Did you do something to stop communication

17 between your son and Michael Jackson?

18 A. Um — um, yeah, I just expressed I was

19 uneasy about it.

20 Q. Okay. And you said no visits in the year

21 2001 as well?

22 A. That’s right.

Next, Zonen questioned Janet about the relationships she had with other celebrities who were there for her during Gavin’s illness. Notice how Janet said that Chris Tucker and his then girlfriend Aja Pryor had built up a lot of “credibility” with her!

23 Q. When was the first visit in 2002?

24 A. That was with Chris Tucker and Aja. They

25 had built so much credibility with me, they took

26 my — it was like everything was — like doing

27 family activities together, and so when Chris had

28 asked me that he wanted to take the children to 5997

1 Neverland, I felt it was okay, because Chris — you

2 know, they’re decent people, Chris and Aja.

3 Q. Chris Tucker is somebody who befriended your

4 son —

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. — during the time he was ill?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Did he actually know him prior to that?

9 A. No.

10 Q. There were a number of celebrities that did

11 know your children —

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. — prior to your son Gavin becoming ill.

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. And who were they?

16 A. Well, let me see. I don’t know if you call

17 them famous or something, but they’re famous to me.

18 Q. People who had befriended your child —

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. — or children prior to Gavin becoming ill?

21 A. For example, Wheezy. Her name is Louise

22 Palanker. To me, she’s famous.

23 Q. Who else?

24 A. Jamie, George Lopez, Fritz. And then Jamie

25 had — Jamie had, like, guests, comics that came,

26 and celebrities, and so they would — they met them

27 there.

28 Q. The introduction to Chris Tucker was by 5998

1 whom?

2 A. By Jamie.

3 Q. Was that during the time that your son was

4 ill?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. And did Jamie Masada often visit your son at

7 the hospital?

8 A. Oh, yes. Yes. Almost daily. My son

9 even — my — Jamie would try to — there came a

10 point where Gavin wasn’t eating because he was

11 vomiting blood, because he was a very sick boy. And

12 so Jamie was trying to get him to eat, and he’d —

13 Gavin had vomited on him, and that didn’t keep him

14 away. He still kept coming.

Janet was then questioned about her relationship with her ex-husband David, including his abuse of her and the children, and the restraining order that she had taken out on him:

15 Q. Okay. Now, the visit to Neverland in 2002

16 with Mr. Tucker, do you know who arranged that?

17 A. Chris.

18 Q. And did he in fact take the kids there?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. All right. How many kids went on that

21 visit?

22 A. On the baby boy’s birthday party?

23 Q. The first visit in 2002.

24 A. Oh, I see. The best I can remember,

25 Chris — this is another thing, too. Chris was

26 working on a movie that he was trying to put

27 together called “The President.” And he took his

28 writer, Kelly. And he took the kids because he says 5999

1 they’re funny and they give him ideas, you know, by

2 them joking around with him.

3 Q. Okay.

4 A. So —

5 Q. When do you think that first visit was?

6 A. The return, with Chris?

7 Q. The first visit in 2002 with Chris Tucker.

8 A. That was in spring.

9 Q. In spring?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. All right. Now, the next visit to Neverland

12 was approximately when?

13 A. Michael had invited the kids right after.

14 Q. Did he call the house?

15 A. Yes. Evvy did.

16 Q. Evvy called. Did she speak with you?

17 A. No.

18 Q. Who did she — with whom did she speak?

19 A. Gavin.

20 Q. Do you know approximately how long that was

21 after that first visit with Chris Tucker?

22 A. I can’t remember right now, but — I think

23 it was Michael, too, but — unless I know for a

24 fact, I’ll tell you, but that’s the best I can

25 remember.

26 Q. And did the kids in fact go at that time?

27 A. Yes.

28 Q. This is now still spring of 2002? 6000

1 A. Yes. Right after they were there with

2 Chris.

3 Q. Was your husband still in the picture at

4 that time, David?

5 A. No.

6 Q. Had you already separated?

7 A. Yes. I’d been separated from David since

8 May of 2001.

9 Q. From the time of that separation, has David

10 had contact with your children?

11 A. No.

12 Q. Was there an order that prohibited him from

13 doing so?

14 A. Okay. During the summer, even though he

15 was — he had done the things he had done, during

16 the summer I still tried — I thought it was my

17 fault, so I tried to encourage. I figured — I

18 figured he — he can have some kind of — start

19 becoming or having a father relationship with them

20 in the summer. But that ended when those criminal

21 things —

22 Q. Was there a criminal prosecution of David?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Did — was there actually more than one?

25 A. Yes.

26 Q. All right. One involving you, and one

27 involving Davellin?

28 A. Yes, two different years. 6001

1 Q. Following those prosecutions, was there any

2 contact between David Arvizo and your children?

3 A. No, except for that one time that he had

4 violated the restraining order with Davellin.

5 Q. And you were in court?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Other than being in court —

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. — was there any contact?

10 A. And then that violation of the restraining

11 order with Davellin.

Here is how Janet met Jay Jackson in July 2002, and a description of the Sea Cadet Program that Star and Gavin were enrolled in, during which Janet met Jay Jackson for the first time. She also described the white Ford Bronco that was loaned to her by Jackson so that the family would have a vehicle to bring Gavin to and from the hospital:

23 Q. Now, at some point around this period of

24 time, you meet Jay Jackson; is that correct?

25 A. Yes.

26 Q. When did you meet Jay Jackson?

27 A. I met him — I met Jay in July of 2002, but

28 just met. You know, the children were attending 6004

1 this Sea Cadet program in his base. I don’t know if

2 you call it “base,” but it’s — it’s — I don’t know

3 the appropriate — correct thing. I used to do

4 something. It’s disrespectful, but it’s funny. I

5 would tell him that’s the Sea Cadet Headquarters,

6 but it was actually an Army base.

7 Q. The base was where, now?

8 A. In West L.A.

9 Q. Would you take the children there?

10 A. Yes, I did.

11 Q. The “children” were just the two boys?

12 A. Yes, just the two boys. But I was —

13 Davellin was involved with the LAPD Explorer

14 program, but I was trying to see if Davellin would

15 be interested in that, too.

16 Q. And is Davellin still involved in LAPD

17 Explorers?

18 A. Yes. Well, to this day, no. Right now

19 she’s pretty busy. She’s going to work and going to

20 school.

21 Q. But she was with the LAPD Explorers?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. For some period of time?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Now, this program, the Navy Sea Cadets, how

26 is it that the boys became involved in that?

27 A. Okay. Someone had gone to their school and

28 kind of explained what this program was. And then I 6005

1 got interested, because in the packet it said a lot

2 of interesting things to do to help them with

3 hopefully becoming a better person, so — and

4 leadership skills, so —

5 Q. Was there a charge for it?

6 A. There was a cost, depending on — depending

7 on your — if you wanted to volunteer/no volunteer.

8 Not volunteer for everything, but — you know, in

9 the little thing.

10 Q. But there wasn’t a mandatory fee requirement

11 for this?

12 A. As far as I know, there wasn’t.

13 Q. Now, you would bring the boys to that

14 location?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. And how often did they go?

17 A. They went — well, Gavin — Gavin and Star

18 volunteered for just about everything possible.

19 Q. Okay. But how often do you think you would

20 take them there?

21 A. Okay. Twice a month, but because the boys

22 were volunteering just about for everything, it

23 would be more than twice a month.

24 Q. All right. And the location where you took

25 them was where?

26 A. In West L.A.

27 Q. Did you have a car during this period of

28 time? 6006

1 A. No, I didn’t.

2 Q. From the time of your separation from David

3 Arvizo, did you ever have a car during that time?

4 A. From like when — let me see. About the end

5 of spring or the beginning of summer of 2001, they

6 had — the car that they had given Gavin they took

7 back.

8 Q. There was a vehicle — actually, my question

9 was after your separation with David Arvizo.

10 A. Yeah. It still stood for about one more

11 month, about.

12 Q. So you had that car for about a month after

13 your separation?

14 A. Yeah, probably less than a month, but I’m

15 approximating.

16 Q. What kind of a vehicle was this?

17 A. It looked just like O.J. Simpson’s car. It

18 was the white — I mean —

19 Q. A white Bronco?

20 A. Yeah. Yeah.

21 Q. All right.

22 A. Exactly. I mean, even to almost the year,

23 but I’m not — you know, it may be off, the years.

24 Q. And where did this vehicle come from?

25 A. From him.

26 Q. Was it brought back by David Arvizo?

27 A. What do you mean?

28 Q. Did he return in this vehicle from 6007

1 Neverland?

2 A. No, no. It was delivered to my mom’s house.

3 Q. And then at some point in time, was the

4 vehicle returned?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Why was it returned?

7 A. Well, the — the little thing when you turn

8 it on and off wouldn’t work. Sometimes it would

9 work, and sometimes it wouldn’t. And where I live,

10 you can’t leave a car too long, because different

11 streets are assigned parking things and they would

12 tow the car away. And Michael had said if anything

13 ever got broken, to send it back and he’ll have it

14 repaired. But it never came back.

15 Q. Did something break?

16 A. Yes. I had taken it to a place on Valley

17 Boulevard and they had told me that the — an

18 alternator was — I don’t know what it is, but they

19 said an alternator.

20 Q. Okay. Some cars have those, I understand.

21 The car was then returned to Mr. Jackson?

22 A. Yes, sir.

23 Q. And did you ever see that vehicle again?

24 A. Never seen it again.

In this excerpt, Janet described the invitation that Gavin received from Jackson to return to Neverland in September 2002. She thought that Chris Tucker communicated to Jackson that Gavin’s biopsy was favorable and his cancer was in remission, but in fact Gavin was invited by Jackson to participate in the Bashir documentary:

– She claims here she knew Gavin and Star were not in the guest units and slept with MJ, in either the police report or the Grand Jury she claimed she had no idea that the kids had slept in his room “until now.” This is despite the fact she would previously claim in the Bashir outtakes and the DCFS and other interviews that Gavin and Star slept in his room and MJ slept on the floor.

– in her original police report she says MJ had asked to only have Gavin come visit him alone sometime in mid 2001 and this made her uncomfortable, I think she said this a few times (obviously total BS). Now she actually specifies it was nothing MJ had done to make her uncomfortable, she just was.

I think WHEEZY and RON know they have them over a barrell. These kids are low lifes , but they arent stupid.and neither is ZONEN, although the jury is still out on WEEZY imo..
They know Zonen, is more concerned with saving his own reputation, and these kids go back to scanning people, then it would look bad for him .
He is stuck with them for life.
If you read the questions Sneddon asks about Gavin illness, he always skirts around that this family hooked onto people , because they said he was dying and it wasnt true.
Gavin says right in , I think it is cross exam , that the doctors told him he need a certain amount of chemo and he would be in remission.I think Mesereau wanted to make sure the jury got , that, his mother exaggerated his diagnosis , to get close to celebrities.
Poor MJ thinks a dying child wants to meet him , and he has weeks to live and wants to hang around in his bedroom ..He thinks it is a dying wish, not his mother setting up a a situation , where she could possibly put him in a compromising position..
Gavin was put through alot , but he was never dying , and yet you see the mother calling it some “Unknown kind of cancer” , Davelin says on Bashirs tape that the doctors told the parents to make his funeral plans..It is all baloney.
I remember when I started looking for transcripts , I asked Randy T if Gavins doctor had testified, because I thought for sure , Sneddon would bring him in , to say how he was dying and it was terrible to give him wine etc, just to put another nail in MJ coffin, so Sneddon ddint bring him in , because he knew they were lying..
Same as when Star Arvizo is saying they were on the plane from Miami, making funny phone calls.
You know Sneddon had unlimited time and resources , so if it was true, he would contacted the people who got the funny phone calls and brought them in to testify.He never did , because he knew there was no phone calls ,and this family was lying again..

I don’t believe the gullibility of these prosecutors when they talked to Janet. They tried hand over fist to make it look like Gavin was always so close to death! I want to know what they biopsied! In order for a biopsy to be done there has to be something on the other kidney for them to biopsy, some kind of abnormal cell growth. You don’t biopsy a healthy organ to see if there is still cancer in the body. That is done with blood tests and scans. These people were hopeless liars when it came to his cancer.I now know more than ever that what he had was a Wilms Tumor and they knew all along that he would get better.
Then what was that about the years that they had that apartment on Soto street? From 1998-2003? What did they get an apartment for 2 years before Gavin had cancer? Tom Mesereau was right.They had that apartment just to scam people.They were scamming George Lopez and the others from the Laugh Factory long before they met Michael.

Must be nice to have the entire DA office and your civil attys working together , like the Arvizos are their clients,also… ,
why give immunity when she can claim the 5th amendment so she doesnt have to answer defense questions.regarding welfare fraud and perjury…
They arent going to prosecute her anyway..,
It is so obvious and yet they are so arrogant about it.BLANTANT
And the way they respond to Mesereaus motions is unbelievable, they seem to be threatening to come after him next.., regarding his remark about prosecution misconduct..
They know they are untouchable..
The Geragos book was pretty enlightening , because I thought that the way Sneddon handled this case was an isolated vendetta,by an abusive prosecutor, but he says the power of the prosecutors has become so out of kilter , with the power of the defense , that not much can be done with it, and it is almost unheard of , for a prosecutor to be called out and sanctioned for malicious prosecution, hiding exculpatory evidence or abusing the power of their office , because there is no recourse.
Sneddon had been getting away with this for years, this was just his personality on steroids.
Mesereau was right that his hatred of MJ poisoned his entire office.
According to Geragos, the judges also cave in to the prosecutors because they are elected and if they are perceived as being soft on crime, the prosecutors will run someone in their own office against them, because everything is about politics in the court system now…